| Regional Labor Court in Tel Aviv – Jaffa | |
| Arbitration Claims 29028-09-16 | |
16 July 2018
| Before:
The Honorable Judge Hannah Trachtingut – Senior Judge |
||
| Public Representative (Employees) Mr. Moshe Kahane
|
||
| TheApplicant | Eliyahu Eli Zizov
By Attorney Shai Elias |
|
| – | ||
| TheRespondent | Hapoel Akko Football Club
By Attorney Yiftach Ibn Ezra |
|
|
Judgment
|
- We have before us a motion to annul an arbitration award rendered on July 19, 2016 (hereinafter - the arbitration award) by the arbitrator, Adv. Tagar Amiel, who was appointed in accordance with the bylaws of the arbitration institution of the Israel Football Association (hereinafter - the arbitrator and the Association, respectively).
- The Applicant is a soccer player, who played for the Hapoel Acre football team (hereinafter - the team or the respondent) in the 2013/14 season and in the 2014/15 season.
- Background to the application -
- On November 13, 2013, a "Player Agreement Form for the 2013/14 Season" was signed between the Applicant and the Respondent, in accordance with the Association's Budget Control Regulations (hereinafter - the Control Agreement). The control agreement is intended to regulate the relationship between the applicant and the respondent during the 2013/14 and 2014/15 seasons (should the parties choose to extend the control agreement, as they did), including the full consideration that the applicant will receive from the respondent.
- Parallel to the control agreement, an additional agreement was signed between the Applicant and the Group's CEO in the 2013/14 season, Mr. Ezra Goresh, which was intended, according to the Applicant, to serve as an appendix to the control agreement, and which the Respondent disputed its validity (hereinafter - the Appendix). In the appendix, it was determined that the Respondent would return to the player the sum of ILS 25,000 that the Applicant's family paid to the Maccabi Tel Aviv team, in which the Applicant had previously played. In addition, the appendix determined that the respondent would pay the applicant a lump sum of ILS 7,000 for travel expenses that he had incurred prior to signing the appendix, and would also pay him a monthly sum of ILS 5,000 for rent expenses. There is no dispute that the appendix was never submitted for approval by the Budget Control Authority and did not receive its approval, although the parties disagree as to the group's intention to submit it for such approval.
According to the respondent, she was not at all aware of the existence of the appendix, which was first presented by the applicant in the framework of the pre-trial that was held before the arbitrator.